Rules, Regularity, and Relative Pronouns
The other day I was thinking about relative pronouns and how they get so much attention from usage commentators, and I decided I should write a post about them. I was beaten to the punch by Stan Carey, but that’s okay, because I think I’m going to take it in a somewhat different direction. (And anyway, great minds think alike, right? But maybe you should read his post first, along with my previous post on who and that, if you haven’t already.)
I’m not just talking about that and which but also who, whom, and whose, which is technically a relative possessive adjective. Judging by how often relative pronouns are talked about, you’d assume that most English speakers can’t get them right, even though they’re among the most common words in the language. In fact, in my own research for my thesis, I’ve found that they’re among the most frequent corrections made by copy editors.
So what gives? Why are they so hard for English speakers to get right? The distinctions are pretty clear-cut and can be found in a great many usage and writing handbooks. Some commentators even judgementally declare, “There’s a useful distinction here, and it’s lazy or perverse to pretend otherwise.” But is it really useful, and is it really lazy and perverse to disagree? Or is it perverse to try to inflict a bunch of arbitrary distinctions on speakers and writers?
And arbitrary they are. Many commentators act as if the proposed distinctions between all these words would make things tidier and more regular, but in fact it makes the whole system much more complicated. On the one hand, we have the restrictive/nonrestrictive distinction between that and which. On the other hand, we have the animate/inanimate (or human/nonhuman, if you want to be really strict) distinction between who and that/which. And on the other other hand, there’s the subject/object distinction between who and whom. But there’s no subject/object distinction with that or which, except when it’s the object of a preposition—then you have to use which, unless the preposition is stranded, in which case you can use that. And on the final hand, some people have proscribed whose as an inanimate or nonhuman relative possessive adjective, recommending constructions with of which instead, though this rule isn’t as popular, or at least not as frequently talked about, as the others. (How many hands is that? I’ve lost count.)
Simple, right? To make it all a little clear, I’ve even put it into a nice little table.
This is, in a nutshell, a very lopsided and unusual system. In a comment on my who/that post, Elaine Chaika says, “No natural grammar rule would work that way. Ever.” I’m not entirely convinced of that, because languages can be surprising in the unusual distinctions they make, but I agree that it is at the least typologically unusual.
“But we have to have rules!” you say. “If we don’t, we’ll have confusion!” But we do have rules—just not the ones that are proposed and promoted. The system we really have, in absence of the prescriptions, is basically a distinction between animate who and inanimate which with that overlaying the two. Which doesn’t make distinctions by case, but who(m) does, though this distinction is moribund and has probably only been kept alive by the efforts of schoolteachers and editors.
Whom is still pretty much required when it immediately follows a preposition, but not when the preposition is stranded. Since preposition stranding is extremely common in speech and increasingly common in writing, we’re seeing less and less of whom in this position. Whose is still a little iffy with inanimate referents, as in The house whose roof blew off, but many people say this is alright. Others prefer of which, though this can be awkward: The house the roof of which blew off.
That is either animate or inanimate—only who/which make that distinction—and can be either subject or object but cannot follow a preposition or function as a possessive adjective or nonrestrictively. If the preposition is stranded, as in The man that I gave the apple to, then it’s still allowed. But there’s no possessive thats, so you have to use whose of of which. Again, it’s clearer in table form:
The linguist Jonathan Hope wrote that several distinguishing features of Standard English give it “a typologically unusual structure, while non-standard English dialects follow the path of linguistic naturalness.” He then muses on the reason for this:
One explanation for this might be that as speakers make the choices that will result in standardisation, they unconsciously tend towards more complex structures, because of their sense of the prestige and difference of formal written language. Standard English would then become a ‘deliberately’ difficult language, constructed, albeit unconsciously, from elements that go against linguistic naturalness, and which would not survive in a ‘natural’ linguistic environment.1“Rats, Bats, Sparrows and Dogs: Biology, Linguistics and the Nature of Standard English,” in The Development of Standard English, 1300–1800, ed. Laura Wright (Cambridge: University of Cambridge Press, 2000), 53.
It’s always tricky territory when you speculate on people’s unconscious motivations, but I think he’s on to something. Note that while the prescriptions make for a very asymmetrical system, the system that people naturally use is moving towards a very tidy and symmetrical distribution, though there are still a couple of wrinkles that are being worked out.
But the important point is that people already follow rules—just not the ones that some prescriptivists think they should.
|↑1||“Rats, Bats, Sparrows and Dogs: Biology, Linguistics and the Nature of Standard English,” in The Development of Standard English, 1300–1800, ed. Laura Wright (Cambridge: University of Cambridge Press, 2000), 53.|
9 thoughts on “Rules, Regularity, and Relative Pronouns”
So why is it that I find your lopsided and unusual table so much easier to follow than the other?
Well, it eliminates a lot of variation, which leaves each function with only one word (though not one word for each function). So in that sense it’s easier—you don’t have to choose between that and which or that and who or who and whom, because the rules choose for you. But I have to admit that I’m a little skeptical that it’s really easier, because a lot of effort goes into maintaining these rules. If it’s so easy, why doesn’t everyone do it?
And keep in mind that the second chart is what people who haven’t learned the rules (and many who have) already follow. Most proponents of the distinctions frequently ignore them or fail to notice when they violate them. My point is that we don’t need to invent and defend rules to create a regular system—people naturally do that on their own.
which/that « Arnold Zwicky's Blog
[…] AZBlog, 10/19/11: that which won’t die (link): with a link to Stan Carey’s blog, and from there to John McIntyre and Arrant Pedantry […]
That which is restrictive « Sentence first
[…] Pedantry explores in greater detail the distinctions between the relative pronouns, and finds that “we do have rules—just not […]
And of course many people just leave out the relative – the man I gave the apple to – and this is so standard that teaching grammars often feel compelled to note that in Language X you CANNOT leave out the relative as you can in English.
Good point. I thought about mentioning that but decided that the post was long enough already. It seems that you can only delete the relative if it’s a restrictive subject, object, or object of a stranded preposition.
Do you know the history of “what” as a relative pronoun? I see it only very occasionally, such as in Terry Pratchett (“Are you sure it wasn’t you what done it?”) and the Book of Mormon (“the words of Christ will tell you all things what
ye should do”, “And who knoweth but what my son, to whom the kingdom doth belong, should turn to be angry”, “And now who knoweth but what the remnant of the seed of Joseph, which shall perish as his garment, are those who have dissented from us?”). I don’t think I’ve ever heard it in person. Is it just archaic?
I don’t really know the history offhand, but I do know that it’s not uncommon in nonstandard varieties but hasn’t been used in standard English in centuries. I’ve actually heard it in person, though. I think it used to be more widespread at some point but fell out of use. I’ll see if I can find out some more about it and do a write-up on it.
Have you really? Interesting. Thank you.